Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1990 22:26:16 -0500
Reply-To: Frank Miller <fmiller01@SPRYNET.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Frank Miller <fmiller01@SPRYNET.COM>
Subject: Re: Junk yard find. (GM Conversion)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm thinking a 3.8l V-6 like in my Buick would be the way to go. Incredibly
reliable engine. The car can't be much lighter than the Vanagon, gets 30
MPG on highway (at 70 MPH, it's just ticking over at 2000 RPM). I'm sure
that the low RPM's and frequent oil changes are the reason why it's got
290,000 miles on the clock, still original engine & trans. If you get one
out of a Riv, you can have a supercharger. Say what you want about the
stuff from Detroit, there's lots of them in the yards with perfectly good
powerplants. Good ol' Detroit Iron!
Frank Miller
At 11:36 AM 1/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>> Has anyone thought about the engine and trans from a Fiero (V6)
>>
>> Fiero Motor? That is a GM piece of JUNK! This is a down
>> right insult to this list, our Vanagons, and everyone around
>> us! I wouldn't be caught dead thinking of a thing like this.
>> Please never mention this again. Your hurting my ears!
>
>
>Damn common and reliable piece of junk. A guy down Paxtuxent River way in
>MD has been installing GM 2.8-3.1's in AIR COOLED vanagons for years, nicely
>plumbed and I've always meant to ask what radiator (Ford or GM) he uses up
>behind the front grille. Carbed they require a deck lid height addition, FI
>they go in under stock hood. I drove a 2.8, it was a blast, moved like
>nothing you could even imagine. I would no knock this till you've tried it,
>using the 3.1 it would be a real quick van. Frankly I don't really get the
>"at least its German" arguement. The VW L4 and L5 really aren't that exotic
>of powerplants, relatively low specific outputs for their sizes, rock solid
>but not that technically exciting. The 16V was a design abomination. Yep
>people, Mitsubishi, licensed to Porsche, Honda, even egads Nissan with dual
>plug hemispheric heads in the 80's, those were top of the line 4 cylinders,
>technologically and often reliability wise as well. Nothing more origional
>about putting an Audi L5 in my '87 van than a GM V6. The fact that out of
>necessity and common sense VWSA eventually did it years after it left our
>market is interesting and does supply a nice bunch of very expen$ive factory
>parts to make it slightly appealing, but not all that much. I also note
>that I was suprised at just how far along Kennedy is with Subaru conversion
>pieces having sent for literature, but price is about as appealing as the 5
>cyl. Anyway, anyone with a whit of common sense would put in the cheapest
>most reliable thing they can, ideally featuring the lowest future rebuild
>and operating costs. I do not personally know what that is. The MR2
>suggestion is just bizzare, never common enough to even begin to justify,
>and the early ones not all that reliable.
>
>John
>janderson@iolinc.net
>
|